1. Field of the Invention
This invention is directed to an anti-assault apparatus that can be carried by a person and used to emit a repellent spray to thwart an attack by a person or animal.
2. Description of the Related Art
Attack deterrent devices of the type that emit a repellent spray have been disclosed for use in personal protection. U.S. Pat. No. 5,088,624 (hereinafter referred to as "the '624 patent") issued Feb. 18, 1992 to Hugh Hackett et al. is an example of such a device. The device includes a housing that contains one or more canisters containing a noxious chemical, an irritant such as mace and/or an indelible dye for later identification of an assailant. Although the canisters afford great flexibility in the type of anti-assault spray that can be used, the housing of the '624 patent's device is relatively large, on the order of seven centimeters or more, and the device is therefore relatively unwieldy to carry on one's person. In addition, because it is rather large and unusual in appearance, the device of the '624 patent can be spotted and possibly disarmed by an assailant before the victim carrying the device has the opportunity to use such device to thwart an attack. It would be desirable to overcome these disadvantages of the prior art.
Finger rings which contain a repellent that can be discharged at an attacker have also been known for use in the field of personal protection. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 3,353,749 (hereinafter referred to as "the '749 patent") issued Oct. 22, 1965 to H. A. Lahaug, U.S. Pat. No. 4,061,249 (hereinafter referred to as "the '249 patent") issued Dec. 6, 1977 to Dale Maxwell Smith, and U.S. Pat. No. 4,135,645 (hereinafter referred to as "the '645 patent") issued Jan. 23, 1979 to Steven D. Kimmell, all disclose rings which contain repellent sprays for discharge at an attacker. These rings are generally advantageous in that they conceal from an assailant the fact that the ring wearer is armed with repellent spray so that such assailant cannot disarm the ring wearer. However, the devices of the '749, '249 and '645 patents all suffer from the disadvantage that their repellent supplies cannot be readily replaced after they are discharged. In addition, with the device of the '645 patent, the user has but one opportunity to disable an attacker because the entire repellent supply is consumed when triggered. In addition to overcoming the above-stated disadvantages, it would be desirable to provide an anti-assault apparatus that affords different options as to how such apparatus can be carried by a person.